Revision of laws on bioethics: gamete donors remain anonymous

Written by Sandeep Nehra

MPs have no surprises on Thursday maintained the principle of anonymity of gamete donation in discussions on the revision of the bioethics laws, which has toured extensively around the status of the embryo, trisomy 21, the risk of eugenics or still “double hope baby.”

The other key issue of embryo research and stem cells had not yet been addressed in the early evening.

As members had already acknowledged in the committee, the gamete (sperm or egg cells) will remain anonymous while the initial project of the former Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot introduced a partial lifting of anonymity.

The member Marc Le Fur (UMP) has defended an unsuccessful amendment to remove the anonymity. “Do we want to deny this fundamental freedom to know where we come from? Everyone is entitled to his story!” He said.

Minority also left, Gaëtan Gorce (PS) highlighted “the right of children to know their origins.” “I see” in anonymity “discomfort from the third donor,” he said, deploring “an outdated view of the family.”

Expressing his own “doubts” and “evolution” to a change of opinion, John Leonetti (UMP) argued “the arguments of donors.” 50,000 people from a gamete donation in our country and demands associative lifting the anonymity concern 50 people, “he argues, citing Arthur Association, which promotes the removal.

To protect anonymity, he described the risks of choosing a donor “catalog”, launching provocative: “Is it-you want to say that one day. I do not want the sperm Jew?. He also cited the example of Sweden where anonymity was lifted and where “one person has made an application of genetic origin.

On behalf of the Government, Xavier Bertrand (Health) agreed on its meaning. “We need to know to make choices.”

In the same vein, Jean-Yves Le Déaut (PS) has held that “knowing the DNA of its origins will never resolve the question of the quest for its origins.” “This could lead to that there is less of gamete donation,” he also warned.

Rapporteur of the text, Mr. Leonetti has opposed several amendments to alter the prenatal diagnosis or to eliminate the possibility of “double hope baby.” “This child is seen as a means to an end external” tried Xavier Breton (UMP) to get back on the technique of dual diagnosis (PGD-HLA) for the “double hope baby,” introduced by the Act of 2004.

“Let us avoid the drug baby say the drug is thrown, there were two lives!” Pleaded John Leonetti. “Wake up! It’s the double hope! Humanism is ca!” Agreed Bernard Debré (UMP). “There are 20,000 in the world,” he said.

On the issue of prenatal diagnosis, and facing the risk of “eugenics” advocated by some UMP deputies, Xavier Bertrand has hammered that “there is no question of accepting a genetic selection. “In 6876 IMG (medical termination of pregnancy in cases of illness or risk to the mother, ie) there are 505 screenings of trisomy. This proves that this is not the trisomy that leads to an IMG.

While the discussions could be concluded in the night, the Association “Alliance for Human Life” has an event scheduled for Friday in the vicinity of the National Assembly to “initiate a warning cry spectacular” and ” protect society from eugenics.”

• AIDS: U.S. experts to market the first preventive treatment
• KFC will pay 6.3 million euros to an intoxicated teenage girl by a chicken sandwich
• United States: a case of mad cow disease in California
• Moderate deficits in vitamin D are common in France
• Removing a dietary supplement containing a hazardous substance